“…Error magnification is the single most vicious and pervasive meme in popular science miscommunication. It is seeded and driven by the science communicator him/herself and feed-back-looped into society, creating a cycle of half truths rather than educating the public…” — GPC

By Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C

I am not fond of giving unsolicited advice, I almost never welcome it, although one should be open to internalizing constructive guidance when sincerely offered to us. And writers of any kind need editors to help us spot mistakes in our articles and improve format and content.

But I do have some experience writing about science for the general public. Occurrences that I can share with all.

My first article (1987), for El Comercio, explored the impact of aggressive shrimp-farming on the pristine mangrove ecosystems of Ecuador. The piece summarized a hands-on and in situ research project conducted as a biology undergraduate. Not only did it ignite my interest in investigative coverage, but led me to editorialize –ever since– on science, technology and the environment. Twenty-plus full-page reports –text and pictures– followed up to 1993 in Diario Hoy (another leading newspaper in Quito) and wildlife magazines. When I came to the United States to attend graduate school, I contributed 35 op pieces to El Popular (1996 to 2000), the foremost Hispanic newspaper in Toronto.

“…English has an advantage, it is the currency of modern science. It is an idiom of exploration, almost anything goes. Unfortunately, junk-writing is also part of this trial-and-error…”

Over time, I transitioned to writing almost exclusively in English (my second language), which has its own science etiquette, quite distinctive from Spanish. But English has an advantage, it is the currency of modern science. It is an idiom of exploration; anything goes. Unfortunately, junk-writing is also part of this trial and error.

Writing about science for the American readership –lay or specialized– is always a challenge. The landscapes (e.g. editorials, chronicles, reports, notes, blogs), styles, theme trends, and audiences’ interests change constantly. The internet has brought dynamism to sharing science news, via imaging (photos and video), more than text, or in short reports (150 to 300 words, rather than the usual 600 to 800 expected by publishers in the past), and quick and dirty delivery. The latter is a powerful temptation that a cautious columnist should avoid.

Proofreading marks were used in the past for copy-editing scientific manuscripts and articles. They are extinct nowadays (the image shows a humorous version of proofreading symbols broadly shared in the social media). The edition and copy-edition of manuscripts is currently done automatically on computers and online servers. Still, human intervention is needed.

“…I do not consider myself a science writer, although I have been called ‘science journalist,’ as an insult, by a rodentologist incapable of graceful interaction with people…”

Before advancing any further, note that I do not consider myself a science writer, although I have been called “science journalist,” as an insult, by a rodentologist incapable of graceful interaction with people. But, I am a biologist who happens to write about science. I come from a background of journalists (my grandfather, father and a sister), essayists (two brothers who are professors in academia and regular contributors to newspapers), and a novelist sister. Plus, my father’s line run, for decades, a publishing initiative. Books were around us. Still, my only assertion here is that the publication process, from paper to ink on it, or to the sorting of pages and final binding of volumes, is the foundation of my cultural imprinting.

Learning to Spot Mistakes

A good, skeptical eye is essential in a writer, and this can be acquired by training. In my case, I worked as a copy editor for the journal Biotropica while I was a graduate student and, later, a postdoc (1996 to 2003). I revised 80 manuscripts by world authors and on multiple subjects. My responsibility was to find mistakes (typos, grammar errors, non-sense sentences, contradictions and, occasionally, bring content issues to the attention of the editors). That experience taught me to minimize the errors I still make while preparing scientific papers and perspectives. Perfection is never achieved, only sharpness to spot what seems incorrect and improve the outcome.

“…The skill of spotting mistakes shall make anyone a better author…”

And not to forget, I was also production editor and copy editor for Animal Behaviour (2001 – 2003), something I remember with mix feelings: although I did not revise as many manuscripts as for Biotropica, the AB Editorial Office in Indiana passed on to me difficult, long manuscripts, loaded with problems, arid science, although written by famous ethologists. In retrospect, I am grateful to my colleagues for the tedious assignments, and for forcing me to examine unpolished papers. The skill of spotting mistakes shall make anyone a better author.

What I value most from that activity is that I discovered how to adapt the texts submitted by scientists —in the interface animal behavior / conservation biology— to a media-friendly format, language and delivery. I spent hours reshaping the prose without changing the intention of the writers or the scientific accuracy of their proposals. And that is key in science writing. One must avoid the pseudoscience trap, sequel of adopting language that feeds the readers’ unsophisticated comfort zones, at the expense of hurting scientific rigor via distortion.

The point here is that, by being an editor, one can learn to honor science, respect its integrity rather than allow free ride to sensationalism by promoting “breaking news” soon-to-be debunked.

The Network of Science Communication. The pseudoscience trap is inherent to networking. Science writers must not fall in love with inaccuracies and fables (image iStockphoto/Thinkstock).

Developing Your Own Style

You do not need to please everyone, particularly family, friends, colleagues or supervisors. Actually, it works best to stay away from their never unbiased reviews (except if they are writers themselves). But it is important to define the type of science writer you want to be, and develop a style with which a readership identifies you.

“…it is important to define what type of science writer you want to be, and develop a style with which a readership identifies you…”

When I wrote my initial op piece for The Standard Times in 2010, it was welcomed instantly, but two subsequent editorials were rejected. I spoke with the Editor in Chief and persuaded him that we needed to develop –together– a readership for the types of articles I would offer: an analysis of science topics with my personal take, rather than a report-story vast in empty phrases like “scientists say” or “according to researchers” or “in the opinion of experts.” Reluctantly, he agreed and months later we enjoyed the interaction with the readers and their feedback; positive and, sometimes, disapproving.

Being Aware of Your Skills

Because pop science writing lacks the editorial process of a scientific article, it is tempting to avoid fact-checks. Editorial reviewers of newspapers and magazines pay more attention to the journalistic aspects of the story than to its scientific accuracy. Many science writers have a bachelor’s or master’s degree in the humanities, with some training in science and technology (note that this is evolving and today’s media firms hire contributors with graduate certifications and previous experience in the job). If they possess a doctoral degree, it often lacks the postdoctoral practice that a recently-graduated student needs. And if a postdoctoral training is under the belt, the exercise of peer-reviewing (or being peer-reviewed), editing, publishing and, most importantly, reading thousands of scientific papers is just not there.

The Peer-review System of Scientific Papers

“…If, as a science writer, you feel confident with your grasping of scientific papers, think twice. You are probably wrong…”

Not only science writing is difficult, but also reading and correctly translating what the scientists communicate in their publications. Cutting-edge research is usually understood by highly specialized investigators. The best a science writer can do is to seek the original source and obtain interpretations of findings directly from the horse’s mouth. Do not rely, to write your own report, on other writers’ stories in the media. That will only magnify the error. And error magnification is the single most vicious and pervasive meme in popular science miscommunication. It is seeded and driven by the science communicator him/herself (including the press-releases from university campuses about their faculty’s discoveries) and feed-back-looped into society, creating a cycle of half truths rather than educating the public.

If, as a science writer, you feel confident with your grasping of scientific papers, think twice. You are probably wrong. Principal investigators all over the country read the same articles you claim to understand and discuss them in journal clubs with colleagues, postdocs, and graduate students. They dissect the articles to a level of extreme, yet fine criticism and end up comprehending the experiments, the math and statistics, the theoretical context and significance of the studies. If they struggle collectively in this effort, what makes you think that you have it clear?

“…It is up to you, therefore, to publish well-documented perspectives or copious shallow reports…”

In addition, writing hundreds of 300-to-600-word notes about science is not equivalent to preparing a single peer-review publication for a scientific journal. If you do investigative coverage, which might take days, weeks or months (to confirm the veracity of the info), any average science writer could surpass you in production by spawning hourly articles. It is up to you, therefore, to publish well-documented perspectives or copious shallow reports.

Your Work Is Needed

Society needs science communicators, and science writers are crucial in this respect. But be realistic, just examine the turnout of science writers at any major newspaper or magazine (info available online under “contributors”), and realize that, after a few years, the entire staff might have crossed the revolving door. Although there are still more job opportunities for science writers than for TV or documentary anchors. Writing for radio is also an alternative, yet with limited employment. Freelancing, therefore, shall be your probable route.

If you have passion for writing about science, it can be an enjoyable journey. However, here are additional tips:

Obtain the highest education possible and dismiss the notion to not pursue formal schooling and, instead, “learn on the job.” The latter is damaging advice, usually given by people without specialized education, or by those who benefit from your unpreparedness. If you actually get the job, you will always “learn the praxis” while on it. But you will never compensate, “on the job,” for the formal education you missed. Science, math and technology are not taught in the streets.

Read by far more topics than you can write about; develop a sense for science.

Travel internationally to scientific meetings and try to understand the cultural contexts in which science is done elsewhere; this could be difficult since we all see the planet through parochial preconceptions. However, modern science is done collaboratively and international partnerships are ubiquitous. Writing from home will keep your mind at home.

Write about science itself, rather than people in science. Do not celebritize individuals, but grant credit to all who deserve it.

Do not become enticed by the ivory-tower institutions as the sole source of science stories to report; that will turn you into a snob writer.

And remember that a good science tale should be good by itself, no matter its origin, but only a good story teller would make it shine.

“The great contribution of ‘Measuring the Evolution Controversy’ is the rich content of data and analysis that asks detailed questions about the social, economic and political backgrounds of those who tend to reject evolution vs. those who accept evolution as science. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa deftly analyze their data drawn from institutions of higher learning in the United States and particularly New England —which stands as a microcosm of the rest of the country, and indeed elsewhere in the world. It is their scientific approach to these issues which makes this book stand out as a uniquely original contribution.” —Niles Eldredge, PhD, Curator Emeritus of Paleontology at The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

“Pro-science activists and educators constantly bemoan the resistance to the teaching of evolution in the United States. All of us have anecdotes about encounters with the public, parents and students who are misinformed by their churches, Religious-Right groups, and creationist organizations. Paz-y-Miño-C and Espinosa present hard data that support the anecdotal evidence. They also show that although anti-evolutionism typically begins with religion, it is a multi-faceted problem that intersects with political and cultural ideologies. Gathered through careful research over a period of years, their data will enable scientists and defenders of science education to comprehend the roots of the evolution controversy and counteract resistance to evolution more strategically and effectively.” — Barbara Forrest, PhD, co-author with Paul R. Gross of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (2007), and expert witness for plaintiffs, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“The sweet spot of this collection of essays is the interface of science, history and literacy. Paz-y-Miño-C is, in essence, a champion of rationalism and a passionate defender of literacy standards. His essays deftly weave hard survey data and memorable turns of phrase with evocative imagery… While the essays in this collection are vast in coverage —from climate change to energy policy, stem cell research, vaccinations and, especially, evolution— a clear underlying theme emerges: [the author’s] goal is no less than to counter, through the lens of history and the majesty of rationalism, social forces that sanction ignorance, celebrate denial and… continue to diminish our global status in the fields of science and technology.” Jeff Podos, PhD, Professor of Biology, University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA.

“Paz-y-Miño-C is a firm believer in evolutionary processes. He would like to see decisions made on the basis of facts, not unsupported opinion. He abhors and fears irrational thinking, especially ‘the views of those who see evil in truth and menace in the realities discovered by science.’ He marvels at the intricacy and diversity of life, and how it came about through natural selection… and is clearly frustrated by the unwillingness of so many to see the beauty and majesty in this view of the world and all that it explains.” – Jan A. Pechenik, PhD, Professor of Biology, Tufts University, USA, author of The Readable Darwin: The Origin of Species, as Edited for Modern Readers.

EvoLiteracy News 02 17 2016

World Visitors to EVOLUTION LITERACY – Readers from 103 countries visited EvoLiteracy during 2015. Three in every four readers were from the United States. About one in every five visitors were from Brazil, Canada, UK, Germany, India, Ecuador, France, Australia and Spain. And one in every ten cyberworms came from 93 other countries. EvoLiteracy is growing thanks to our world friends and followers. – Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C.

There are 190+ countries in the world (member states of the United Nations). EvoLiteracy reaches half of them (52%). The image below includes flags of nations, which total 230+. We still need to reach as many nations as possible. Please share EvoLiteracy with others.

Flags of 230+ nations in the world. Click on image to enlarge. Source Danilka’s Blog.

Top 25 Most Read Posts of 2015

Here are the most popular postings of 2015. I was glad to discover that the biology science videosmade much of an impact, particularly among science educators. I also liked that three crucial postings about higher education (marked with an asterisk * below) were well received. To my surprise (and I thank the readers for liking it), the posting about Ecuador’s Academy of Science was ranked top 10. My personal favorite was Science Challenges Golden Age of Violin Making, and this is because I am fascinated with string instruments (classic guitars, ukuleles, charangos); I learned much while investigating the violin ancestry. But I cannot close without admitting how much pleasure gave me to see our readers liking Evolution Wars Debunk II (ranked 13th, a lucky number). Plus the most commented story was Shroud of Turin, Poor Science, and the Persistence of a Myth, which was reposted in various blogs and generated two weeks of discussions. Thanks to all for supporting EvoLiteracy. – GPC

“…Edward Hitchcock’s collection of fossilized tracks and traces of dinosaurs is one of the largest in the world and the Beneski Museum of Natural History exhibits them as fine art, carved by nature… Under soft lighting, a saturation of textures emerges from or deepens into the flat rocks. The 200-million-year-old footprints are so exquisite…”

Cast of Anchisauripus and Grallator tracks at the Beneski Museum of Natural History – Photo GPC

“…More than feeding the public’s dinosauria-frenzy, the goal of the Museum is to educate about the geology and paleontology of New England by taking advantage of the fossils’ beauty…”

Although the collection of dinosaur tracks is the main treasure guarded by the Beneski Museum, its 1,700 objects on display for the general public are, not only introductory for what the visitor will experience once face-to-face with the fossilized footprints, but also cleverly distributed in three floors within the building’s brick, steel and glass structure. More than feeding the public’s dinosauria-frenzy, the goal of the Museum is to educate about the geology and paleontology of New England by taking advantage of the fossils’ beauty.

Beneski’s main hall welcomes the visitor with gentle, almost unpretentious bone casts of a dire wolf and a sabertoothed cat (both roamed 100,000 years ago). Behind them, however, enormous skeletons of a mammoth and a mastodon capture all the attention, to the point that the wolf, cat, and the soon-to-be-seen cave bear and Irish elk appear small in contrast to the tusks protruding out of the proboscideans‘ (elephants’) skulls.

Mammoth and Mastodon at the Beneski Museum of Natural History – Photo GPC

This floor includes two more displays. The evolution of the Equids (horses), which took place almost entirely in North America, from ancestral forms of dog-sized quadrupeds, which over 50 million years —since the Eocene— gradually increased in mass, decreased in the number of toes —from 5 to 3 and to the single middle digit on which modern horses gallop— and changed their diet from browsing to grassing, as revealed by their teeth. All visible traits in the fossil record and unequivocal evidence in support to Darwinian evolution.

“…Brontops was a browser shaped like a colossal rhino and with two blunt horns over the snout. On display, its cast shrinks the presence of its wall-of-fame, equally extinct hoofed companions…”

The Ungulate Wall of Fame, with Brontops at the bottom, Beneski Museum of Natural History – Photo GPC

The last prominent display in the main lobby is of ungulates. On a wall, half of their skeletons, as seen from aside, come out as 3D sculptures mounted on the silhouettes of their flesh. The largest is a Brontothere, member of a lineage that became extinct 30 million years ago, and that was remotely related to today’s rhinoceroses, which, by the way, belong to the odd-toed mammals (together with horses and tapirs). This Brontops was a browser shaped like a colossal rhino and with two blunt horns over the snout. On display, its cast shrinks the presence of its wall-of-fame, equally extinct hoofed companions.

The Museum’s tradition goes back to the foundation of Amherst College (1821) and the hire of Edward Hitchcock, who by 1825 had left the Congregational ministry to become Professor of Chemistry and Natural History. His “Ichnology Collection” of fossilized tracks and traces of dinosaurs became one of the largest in the world and the Beneski Museum exhibits casts of them in its lower level. I counted 25 by 15 steps while assessing the tracks’ gallery. It was divided in four alleys with eight parallel displaying walls. On them, and under soft lighting, a saturation of textures emerged from or deepened into the flat rocks. They were so exquisite.

“…Footprints of early Jurassic dinosaur transients were left on muddy soils along the Connecticut River Valley. The tracks dried out, hardened and rock formed over time…”

Casts of fossilized dinosaur tracks and prints at the Wolansky Gallery, Beneski Museum of Natural History – Photo GPC – Click on image to enlarge.

Footprints of early Jurassic dinosaur transients were left on muddy soils (200 million years ago) along the Connecticut River Valley, and the geological chronology of this ancient plateau is explained in the third floor of the museum. The dino-tracks dried out, hardened and rock formed over time. Nowadays, we know they belonged to the hind limbs of bipedal species like Eubrontes (3-toes), Grallator (3-toes), Otozoum (4-toes), and the quadrupedal Anomoepus, with 5-toed forelimbs and 3-toed hind limbs.

“…As former clergyman, Hitchcock could not avoid espousing the fallacies of Natural Theology, and during his entire career attempted —and failed— to prove God’s existence in (from) nature. A dead-end path taken with his contemporaries Louis Agassiz, Richard Owen and Adam Sedgwick, who also opposed Charles Darwin’s proposal of evolution via natural selection…”

As former clergyman, Hitchcock could not avoid espousing the fallacies of Natural Theology, and during his entire career attempted —and failed— to prove God’s existence in (from) nature. A dead-end path taken with his contemporaries Louis Agassiz (Harvard), Richard Owen (British Museum) and Adam Sedgwick (Cambridge), who also opposed Charles Darwin‘s proposal of evolution via natural selection. By 1845, Hitchcock became President of Amherst College, at times when highly educated academic administrators were still on demand. But not surprisingly, a later President, Julius Seeyle, a Reformist Pastor, prohibited, in 1877, the teaching of evolution on campus. In retrospect, Hitchcock’s Ichnology Collection —rather than his bureaucratic and creationist distractions— was destined to become the most valuable possession of the Beneski Museum.

“…Mutations are essential to evolutionary change; they provide the genetic variability that lineages of organisms need to persist over the eons. At the same time, evolution has equipped our cells with repairing mechanisms to fix, edit DNA errors that can be detrimental…”

If completely stretched into a single, long molecular chain, the DNA of a human cell would measure about two meters. During our lifetimes, our bodies would replicate enough DNA that, theoretically, it could be extended from Earth to the Sun, and back, 250 times. Ample opportunities to accumulate 37 trillion mutations while re-copying the genetic material.

DNA-repair, image by Tom Ellenberger, Washington University in St. Louis.

What I admire most in these investigators is their obsessive pursue of knowledge during a vigorous exploration of the intimacy of our inner molecules. As Modrich puts it “curiosity-based research is so important; you never know where it is going to lead.” And it did lead them from almost extraneous observations of the harmful effects of UV-light on the DNA of bacteria to –four decades later— its applications to our current understanding of cancer, neuro-degenerative disorders and ageing. Another lesson for today’s academic administrators infatuated with worshiping the science-for-profit model.

All began in the 1920s when American geneticist Hermann Muller (Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine, 1946) found that X-rays could harm bacterial cells. By the 1940s, it was known to scientists that UV-light also had mutagenic effects on most cells. Interestingly, despite radiation-induced damage in bacteria, laboratory colonies continued to persist, which led researchers to infer that these organisms had repair-mechanisms to reinstate the internal chemistry. In 1944, DNA was recognized as the material of heredity and UV-light as a deteriorating agent of its structure.

“…What I admire most in these investigators is their obsessive pursue of knowledge during a vigorous exploration of the intimacy of our inner molecules… [Their] story only grows in beauty…”

The first breakthrough in DNA-repair mechanisms was unexpected: Albert Kelner (US) discovered that, in response to UV-induced cellular damage, bacterial enzymes could reverse the process by using –surprisingly— light, and capturing its energy-particles (photons), which excite electrons in the enzymes’ functional parts, thus jump-starting their repairing engines. The process was termed photo-reactivation and the enzymes photolyases. The story only grows in beauty.

Keep in mind that DNA is built of four “bases,” called adenine A, guanine G, cytosine C and thymine T. Under ordinary circumstances, A always pairs with T, and G with C, hence forming the steps of the DNA’s double helix, which is usually depicted as a staircase. In 1974–1976, Tomas Lindahl studied a frequent mutation in which G, rather than pairing with C (as G-C), had, as partner, the base U (uracil), a constituent of other molecules in the cell. Why? C and U are very similar, but when C loses some of its parts, due to predictable chemical contingencies, it can resemble U more closely. Thus DNA would temporarily accept the pairing G-U, but the cell would fix it by enzymatically chopping off U and restoring the correct coupling G-C. And Lindahl mapped, so elegantly, this entire process, which was labeled single-base excision repair. Later, it became part of the cell’s toolbox for DNA repair mechanisms, of which numerous have been described.

Illustration: Johan Jarnestad – The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (click to enlarge).

In a separate study, Aziz Sancar experimentally manipulated with UV-light-induced mutations and characterized how the cell could fix errors via an alternative pathway, termed multiple-base excision repair, which included cutting off several bases, not only one, as described by Lindahl. Sancar knew that UV-light could make T behave strangely and pair with its homologue (T-T), rather than with A, as it normally does (T-A).

Let us imagine two parallel rows of DNA sequence in which the top one is G,C,T,T,C,G. Its complementary, bottom, pairing (following the rule A-T and G-C) would be C,G,A,A,G,C. However, UV-light damage can induce the Ts on the top row to pair with each other, as T-T, rather than with their corresponding As in the bottom, as T-A and T-A. Thus creating a bump loop on the top row (T-T), leaving the As in the bottom unpaired.

In 1983, Sancar plotted the entire mechanism of repair of the T-T mutation, which included multiple enzymes responsible for accurately cutting and restoring 12 bases in the top row of DNA, five prior and five post T-T. An amazing work.

Illustration: Johan Jarnestad – The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (click to enlarge).

By 1989, Paul Modrich had unveiled a third mechanism, which involved the fixing of DNA sequence mismatches, which randomly emerge during cell divisions. A process called DNA mismatch repair. It included even larger stretches (beyond 12 bases) of folded DNA, which specific enzymes would cut and restore to the correct sequence (watch VIDEO).

Illustration: Johan Jarnestad – The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (click to enlarge).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“This is an inspiring, readable collection of essays of reflective value to everyone. Paz-y-Miño-C points to the vain attempt by many to try and accommodate scientific rationalism with supernatural beliefs. They are simply incompatible. The author has a marvelously eloquent style of writing, full of inspiring metaphors and lateral observations that reinforce connections to the foundations of scientific inquiry and to biological evolution in particular. These thoughtful essays… are inspiring… [and] help clear the fog in our communities and arm our neighbors [with arguments] against theistic anti-science, medical quackery and other irrational nonsense.” – Greg M. Stott, PhD, Geoscientist with the Ontario Geological Survey, Canada.

“Paz-y-Miño-C doesn’t ask the reader to ‘believe’ in evolution. He provides overwhelming evidence, clearly written, that shows how scientific inquiry leads to important and practical results, while superstition and faith lead nowhere. Although we may not be able to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, the author presents a roadmap for those whose minds are open to discover the wonders and beauty of science.” – Herb Silverman, PhD, author of Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt.

“Too many of our colleagues work so hard to appear open minded that their brains seem to have fallen out. When they teach our students that they can pick and choose when to be logical, critical thinkers, they are modeling the type of reasoning that leads to the politics of convenience and its bridesmaids: racism, sexism, and the whole host of xenophobias. Paz-y-Miño-C is a prolific essayist, he does not pull any punches, but when he cuts to the core of an argument, he does it with the flare of a true artist.” – Stan Braude, PhD, Professor of Practice in Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA.

“The breakdown of the Ivory Tower is figurative in the architectonic sense, but not in the intellectual. Education does not need to be cheap, just affordable, sincere. Not vibrant entertainment.” – GPC

“…The race among higher-ed campuses to capture the funds available to students for education is self inflicted, a textbook example of out of control free market competition, in which education is a commodity, rather than a priceless investment in culture, the ultimate possession of a nation…”

The current for-profit model of higher education in America is destined to crash. Its failure will injure primarily the students, today’s borrowers of $1.19 trillion. What for? Mostly tuition and collateral life expenses in exchange for an overpriced degree.

During the past three decades the cost of college has grown 1,120 percent, doubling health care (600 percent), and more than quintupling the expenses of food (200 percent higher since 1978). A reality aired in Ivory Tower, the 2014 documentary by Andrew Rossi on how “the very concept of the institution of higher-learning is about to be broken.”

Source: Ivory Tower 2014 – Documentary by Andrew Rossi

“…education is expensive and its alternative, ignorance, would be more damaging in the long term…”

If the quality of higher education had improved parallel to its fees, then the argument for an overcharged college certificate would be unsound. Now, education is expensive and its alternative, ignorance, would be more damaging in the long term. But, how expensive should education be to justify its actual cost?

By 2015, the total debt balance in the U.S. reached $11.85 trillion; 69 percent of it corresponded to mortgages; 10 percent to student loans; and the remaining amount to auto, credit cards, and revolving loans. Note how from 2003 to 2015 student loans (red bars) grew significantly in respect to other types of loans. Image source: Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, May 2015.

The race among higher-ed campuses to capture the funds available to students for education is self inflicted, a textbook example of out of control free market competition, in which education is a commodity, rather than a priceless investment in culture, the ultimate possession of a nation.

“…the assumption has been that post-graduate degree holders shall be reliable payers, and not flock toward debt-forgiveness programs. A risky supposition…”

Sixty percent of the $1.19 trillion debt belongs to the undergraduate students. The technicality here is that the remaining 40 percent of the balance corresponds to 14 percent of the borrowers, who are graduate students. Thus, the per capita obligation is much higher for the latter. In either case, the responsibility to pay back is substantial, although the assumption has been that post-graduate degree holders shall be reliable payers, and not flock toward debt-forgiveness programs. A risky supposition considering that since 2007, when such initiatives started, additional rescue plans emerged, including President Obama’s 2012 Pay As You Earn.

The forgiveness paths facilitate government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector to hire debt-borrowers to work for a reduced salary and, in return, benefit society by taking public-service roles during a prearranged period. Other alternatives, like the President’s debt relief law, include the capping of monthly payments at 10-15 percent of the borrower’s discretionary income, thus lessening the stress while carrying the loan over time.

“…the national student debt is… a time bomb… comparable to the mortgage transactions of the 2000s, which benefitted financiers but turned unmanageable for home-owners wannabes…”

Despite these damage control policies, the national student debt is, in foresight, a time bomb. Its societal sequels will unveil in a few years. As The Wall Street Journal characterizes it: “offering unlimited loans to students, with the prospect of forgiveness, creates a moral hazard by allowing borrowers to amass debts they have little hope or intention of repaying, all while enriching institutions and leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.” Sounds comparable to the mortgage transactions of the 2000s, which benefitted financiers but turned unmanageable for home-owners wannabes.

By 2015, student loans reached the highest percent of balance 90+ days delinquency in contrast to credit card, mortgage, auto loan and revolving loans. In essence, 10+ percent of student borrowers were not repaying. Image source: Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit, May 2015.

In 2004, the typical borrower (combined graduate and undergraduate) owed $40,000 upon graduation (undergrads $20,000). In 2012, the latest data processed by NAEPP, the standard student borrower owed $57,000 (undergrads $25,000). These are median values, which convey fractional information: one in every ten borrowers owed $153,000 once graduated.

These figures varied according to field of expertise and as per typical borrower: $161,000 among those graduating from the medical and health sciences, $140,000 from law school, $58,000 from a master of arts program, $50,000 from a master of science or education, and $42,000 from a master in business administration.

Among the in-debt, the typical monthly payment, at a 6 percent interest rate and 15-year repayment term, was: $1,365 among graduates from the medical and health sciences, $1,187 from law school, $494 from the arts, $429 from science or education, and $354 from business administration (values adjusted to 2012).

“…The present generation of student borrowers is fated to limited socio-economic mobility, to be trapped in an unsustainable system in which, as customers, they demand satisfaction…”

Top: highest paid Presidents at public colleges in the United States. — Bottom: highest paid Presidents at private colleges (smaller numbers in histogram = base pay salaries). Data from The Chronicles of Higher Education (see summarized list in Business Insider).

The breakdown of the Ivory Tower is figurative in the architectonic sense, but not in the intellectual. The present generation of student borrowers is fated to limited socio-economic mobility, to be trapped in an unsustainable system in which, as customers, they demand satisfaction, rather than proper schooling.

Education does not need to be cheap, just affordable, sincere. Not vibrant entertainment.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“This is an inspiring, readable collection of essays of reflective value to everyone. Paz-y-Miño-C points to the vain attempt by many to try and accommodate scientific rationalism with supernatural beliefs. They are simply incompatible. The author has a marvelously eloquent style of writing, full of inspiring metaphors and lateral observations that reinforce connections to the foundations of scientific inquiry and to biological evolution in particular. These thoughtful essays… are inspiring… [and] help clear the fog in our communities and arm our neighbors [with arguments] against theistic anti-science, medical quackery and other irrational nonsense.” – Greg M. Stott, PhD, Geoscientist with the Ontario Geological Survey, Canada.

“Paz-y-Miño-C doesn’t ask the reader to ‘believe’ in evolution. He provides overwhelming evidence, clearly written, that shows how scientific inquiry leads to important and practical results, while superstition and faith lead nowhere. Although we may not be able to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, the author presents a roadmap for those whose minds are open to discover the wonders and beauty of science.” – Herb Silverman, PhD, author of Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt.

“Too many of our colleagues work so hard to appear open minded that their brains seem to have fallen out. When they teach our students that they can pick and choose when to be logical, critical thinkers, they are modeling the type of reasoning that leads to the politics of convenience and its bridesmaids: racism, sexism, and the whole host of xenophobias. Paz-y-Miño-C is a prolific essayist, he does not pull any punches, but when he cuts to the core of an argument, he does it with the flare of a true artist.” – Stan Braude, PhD, Professor of Practice in Biology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA.

“…the Tsarnaev brothers were internet-self-taught jihadi-aspirants, erratic online consumers of radical Islam; no less dangerous or accountable. But obviously their dysfunctional upbringing, combined with individual failures, made them prone to recruit each other and act criminally… Even so, “Jahar” belongs more in jail than in the execution chamber… Incarceration counters more rationally [his] alleged desire to die as martyr… And, as a humanist, I plea for a life.”

As a secular humanist, I oppose the death penalty, but have no sympathy for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s self-inflicted condition in which his execution is probable. After all, a jury found him guilty of killing three people and injuring 260 when he and his brother, Tamerlan, deliberately detonated pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon of 2013. And guilty was Dzhokhar found on 30 counts, 65 offenses, including the murder of an MIT Officer. Still, as a college educator, another element in my plea, I think that the juvenile, subordinate-sibling and neither-so-bright Dzhokhar deserves imprisonment rather than death. Incarceration counters more rationally Dzhokhar’s alleged desire to die —in his mind— as martyr.

“White Hat” and “Black Hat” subjects, as depicted by the FBI. Soon after detonating pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, on April 15, 2013, the Tsarnaev brothers (Dzhokhar and Tamerlan) were being hunted by the police.

The following morning, when I returned to our sessions at NESCent, a conspicuous silence awaited: almost everyone was devouring the news about the Tsarnaevs. More than their identities, their faces and actions had been exposed on TV. I broke the ice by sharing that I had also become aware that one of the suspects (“white hat,” as identified by the FBI in the surveillance videos) was a student at my own campus —I never knew him. Stillness and discomfort continued as we gradually drifted toward the purpose of our panel: promote the participation of minorities in science careers, specifically evolutionary biology.

I must admit that I remained multitasking for two consecutive days: contributing to the NESCent–NSF discussions and, simultaneously, checking emails from UMass Dartmouth and monitoring the media. Snapshots of the “white-” and “black-hat subjects” plus visuals of the UMassD grounds appeared everywhere.

The momentary embarrassment that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev caused me was, of course, minuscule in contrast to the pain and suffering he and his brother inflicted on people, families, the majestic city of Boston and the country that homed the Chechen-Avar-Tsarnaev kin of refugees. Overnight, the brothers, particularly Dzhokhar, became front-page nourishment —in a dreadful manner— for the world’s news outlets. By August 2013, Rolling Stone magazine doubled its sales after featuring “Jahar” on its cover; Adweek awarded it “Hottest Magazine Cover of The Year.”

Dzhokhar’s deplorable conduct, prior and post the marathon’s blasts, will certainly influence the jury’s final judgment of his wicked psyche: capital punishment or confinement. Yet, justice can be served by not vanishing the quasi-adolescent killer, and by rather relying on the legal system itself to convey a message —human rights, even for brutal felons— and teach a lesson —ultimate civility. Lock him up, as pleaded by some of the victims’ families, although not all, nor a majority.

Bruce Hoffman, Director of the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University, characterized the Tsarnaev brothers as “jihadi autodidacts,” and this assessment might be accurate. In fact, out of the 30 counts in which Dzhokhar was found responsible, including conspiracy to use and possession of a weapon of mass destruction (pressure cookers and pipe bombs), possession and use of a firearm, bombing of a place of public use, conspiracy to and malicious destruction of public property, carjacking, and violent crime (murder), none related to militant participation in organized domestic or international terrorism. Largely, the Tsarnaev brothers were internet-self-taught jihadi-aspirants, erratic online consumers of radical Islam [self radicalized]; no less dangerous or accountable. But obviously their dysfunctional upbringing, combined with individual failures, made them prone to recruit each other and act criminally.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, illustration by Josie Jammet (click on image to enlarge). “Jahar didn’t try very hard to conceal his drug-dealing, keeping a scale in his dorm room desk and bagging marijuana with the door open” (Credit “The Fall of the House of Tsarnaev“)

Again, I have no sympathy for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Before his explosive act in Boston, he was indeed a 19-year-old petty law offender, with no deep political or religious ideology, who probably did not deserve to be in a university, although his high school years seem to have been more promising (his teachers and wrestling-team coach remember him fondly). But, in college, he was a “high-volume pot dealer” (weekly profit $1,000) as depicted by The Boston Globe’s “The Fall of the House of Tsarnaev,” detached from studying, indolent, borrower of a pistol from his best buddy (the very Ruger P95 9mm semiautomatic co-used with Tamerlan to kill Officer Sean Collier), which Dzhokhar needed to “rip” his weed customers.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

“This is an inspiring, readable collection of essays of reflective value to everyone. Paz-y-Miño-C points to the vain attempt by many to try and accommodate scientific rationalism with supernatural beliefs. They are simply incompatible. The author has a marvelously eloquent style of writing, full of inspiring metaphors and lateral observations that reinforce connections to the foundations of scientific inquiry and to biological evolution in particular. These thoughtful essays… are inspiring… [and] help clear the fog in our communities and arm our neighbors [with arguments] against theistic anti-science, medical quackery and other irrational nonsense.” – Greg M. Stott, PhD, Geoscientist with the Ontario Geological Survey, Canada.

“Paz-y-Miño-C doesn’t ask the reader to ‘believe’ in evolution. He provides overwhelming evidence, clearly written, that shows how scientific inquiry leads to important and practical results, while superstition and faith lead nowhere. Although we may not be able to reason someone out of what they were never reasoned into, the author presents a roadmap for those whose minds are open to discover the wonders and beauty of science.” – Herb Silverman, PhD, author of Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt. — READ MORE at EvoLiteracy Mini Reviews.

“…It is a risky bet… to attempt to replicate the antivaxxer-meme and infect the populous with the reckless idea that we should refuse, as a matter of self-determination and individual freedom principles, to ‘put unnatural substances [vaccines] in our bodies,’ or, worse, continue to link vaccinations to ‘mental retardation and autism in children,’ a fabricated story long ago debunked by science… [The] anti-science gang will only succumb to a robust ‘educated-public-herd effect.’”

Anti-vaccination views can spread quite infectiously in society, mimicking the contagious nature of pathogens. But a “culturally immune” community —here I mean aware of the fundamentals about how vaccines work— can remain forever-protected from, or, at least, resistant to antivaxxer-memes.

The Selfish Gene 1st Edition (1976)

Not only good ideas, but also ill ones, like the opposition to inoculations, can self-replicate, mutate analogously to a gene, and disseminate in a population. Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme,” in The Selfish Gene (1976), to refer to such units of information/ideas sharing, although his examples were not about antivaxxers (people who nowadays battle against vaccines on pseudo-science grounds, religion, or consensus-ignorance —my emphasis) but rather illustrated how catchphrases, fashion or melodies emerged and settled in culture. Dawkins wrote: “we need a name for [this kind of] replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene.’ I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme tomeme.”

The word meme itself passed around as a replicator among academics, it became highly scrutinized, as well as valued, and an entire field of study, memetics, was born in the 1980s. Sadly, by 2005, the Journal Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, the peer-reviewed forum for scholarly articles, published its last issue. JM became dormant more than extinct.

The metaphorical merit of the meme concept was both its major strength (for suggesting a didactic model to explain cultural information copying from one mind to another) and weakness (for not attaining consensus in the scientific community due to its subjectivity and the challenge to measure it). However, Dawkins and later “memeticists” (specialists in memetics) did manage to keep alive the meme debate for decades, and there is no indication that the meme hypothesis is irrelevant to modern science. After all, “cultural entities” are certainly hosted in brains, mimicked, subject to variation, competition for survival, and inheritance. Good, with-adaptive-value memes stick around, bad ones are prone to vanishing, but not without first instigating considerable damage.

But, let us go back to antivaccination memes and their harmful makeup. As long as the number of vaccinated individuals in a population overwhelms the amount of unvaccinated, the “herd-immunity effect” will continue to protect those who have not yet developed defenses. The rule is mathematically simple: the probability of infection —and death— increases when the number of unvaccinated people augments. In fact, those lacking vaccine-induced immunity to smallpox, rubella, polio, pertussis, mumps, measles or diphtheria can “free-ride” in society only when the vast majority of the population has been vaccinated at an average rate of 83-88 percent, depending on the disease. That is perhaps all a nation needs to understand to get the shots!

But if the “public good” argument is no antidote for antivaxxer-poison, here I offer a single, yet historically gruesome example that illustrates why vaccinations have become required in many countries: smallpox, the sole predator of 300 to 500 million people during the 20th century, and possibly of 20 million North-, Central- and South-American natives after the Europeans’ arrived —from the Caribbean— in the 1520s.

Smallpox is caused by the variola virus, which transferred from wild or domesticated animals to Sub-Saharan humans, at least 3,000 years ago. Variola behaves like a “hit and run” pathogen, incessantly moving to the next target. Once it enters via inhalation the airway passages of the host’s lungs, it incubates for one or two weeks in lymphatic ganglia and disseminates to multiple organs. The patient becomes symptomatic when lacerations or blisters appear in the skin and endothelial membranes (inside the mouth, nose and throat), combined with fatigue, fever, forehead ache, overall muscle soreness and joint pain, nausea and vomiting. Ineffective immune response leads to death in 1-2 days. Smallpox is fatal in up to 30 percent of cases.

Smallpox virus (click on image to be redirected to source: gettyimages)

The key point is that when the virus runs out of “fresh prey,” it dies out, and this makes it vulnerable to vaccines. Via safe inoculations of laboratory-engineered-strains of the virus, scientists can “trick” the immune system to generate antibodies against variola. Relying on this procedure, smallpox was eradicated in the late 1970s. And by vaccinating most infants, in urban and rural areas worldwide, we all gradually built the herd-immunity effect on which the unvaccinated can freely —but unsafely— ride.

It is a risky bet, of course, to attempt to replicate the antivaxxer-meme and infect the populous with the reckless notion that we should refuse, as a matter of self-determination and individual freedom principles, to “put unnatural substances in our bodies,” or, worse, continue to link vaccinations to “mental retardation and autism in children,” a fabricated story long ago debunked by science (links to references provided below).

Autism’s fight for facts: A voice for science. Convinced by the evidence that vaccines do not cause autism, Alison Singer started a research foundation that pledges to put science first. Nature479, 28-30 ( 02 November 2011 ).

CDC AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER. Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a group of developmental disabilities that can cause significant social, communication and behavioral challenges. CDC is committed to continuing to provide essential data on ASD, search for factors that put children at risk for ASD and possible causes, and develop resources that help identify children with ASD as early as possible.